DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Clapham v Butler & Anor [2016] QDC 268
PARTIES:
DONALD IAN CLAPHAM
(plaintiff)
v
JENIE JUDY JESSIE BUTLER
(first defendant)
and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD (ABN 15 000 122 850)
(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BD 3469/15
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
2 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
27 and 28 October 2016
JUDGE:
Andrews SC DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $18,750.05
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – QUANTUM
Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331 at [19] cited
COUNSEL:
Moon for the plaintiff
Morton for the first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:
Dwyer Law Group for the plaintiff
Moray & Agnew for the first and second defendants
Background
The plaintiff and the first defendant were each driving a different motor vehicle northbound on Sandgate Road toward that road’s intersection with Centro Toombul Access Road. The first defendant negligently drove into the rear of the plaintiff’s stationary vehicle. As a result, the plaintiff suffered an injury to his right wrist and an injury to his thoracic/lower cervical spine. Within a week he also complained of knee pain. He continues to feel symptoms in the wrist and knee which interfere with his work.
Issues
Did the plaintiff suffer an injury to his right knee in the collision or are his subsequent symptoms in the knee a coincidence caused by pre-existing pathology? Has the wrist injury sustained in the collision resolved so that continuing symptoms are due to pre-existing pathology? Has the injury to the thoracic/lower cervical spine resolved? Did the plaintiff sustain an injury to the chest and ribs? And, if so, has it resolved? Has the plaintiff lost income he would otherwise have earned? Will the injuries sustained in the collision produce any financial loss in the future?
Facts
The plaintiff was born on 28 September 1947 and is aged 69 years and one month. He has qualifications and experience as a builder in Queensland and New South Wales.
In the financial year to 30 June 2010 the plaintiff’s individual income tax return recorded that he had no gross or net income. In the calendar year 2010 the plaintiff was building a project house in Brisbane which he had designed.
In the financial year to 30 June 2011 the plaintiff’s individual income tax return recorded that he earned no gross or net income.
In the financial year to 30 June 2012 the plaintiff’s individual income tax return recorded that he earned a net income of $62,772 and gross income of $82,584 as Managing Director of Spectrum Constructions. The plaintiff was the sole income producer for Spectrum Constructions which employed his de-facto partner to run the office. It follows that the plaintiff’s earning capacity was something more than was suggested by his own net income paid by Spectrum Constructions.
Between August and November 2012 unrelated heart surgery and rehabilitation kept the plaintiff from working as a telecommunications site designer…
Continue reading Clapham v Butler
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Clapham v Butler [2016] QDC 268
- Case
- [2016] QDC 268
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the appropriate amount of general damages to compensate Clapham for the pain and suffering he experienced, as well as special damages for any economic losses such as medical expenses and lost income. The court considered medical evidence, expert testimony, and the submissions from both parties regarding the extent and impact of the injuries. It was also necessary to address whether the injuries were permanent and to what degree they affected Clapham's quality of life and future earning capacity.
In its judgment, the court found that Clapham was entitled to an award of damages. The court assessed the evidence and concluded that the injuries were significant but not permanent, and that Clapham's future earning capacity had not been substantially affected. The court awarded Clapham $18,750.05, which included both general and special damages. The court found that this amount was appropriate to compensate Clapham for his injuries and the impact they had on his life.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $18,750.05
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.